Resources

The Claimants sought urgent injunctive relief to restrain a $484 million bond call.  The Defendant appeared at short notice to oppose the relief sought.The Defendant submitted, and the Court held:(1) The Claimants misstated and misled the court as to the key statement of principle on the applicable legal test: [15].(2) Each of the four grounds for injunctive relief was without merit: [30], [38], [44], [51]-[53].The Claimants are to pay 100% of the Defendant’s costs.Tom Owen KC and Alexandra Bodnar appeared for the Defendant.Link to judgment: [2026] EWHC 2047 (TCC).

Mr Justice Constable has refused a freeholder’s application for reverse summary judgment on a claim that its termination of a Building Safety Act remediation agreement was unlawful. The judgment is a useful corrective to the assumption that the statutory backdrop of a remediation order makes delay easier to characterise as repudiatory. It does not.The disputeCentrillion Point in Croydon was converted from offices into flats by Durkan Estates Ltd (“Durkan”) in the late 2000s. Wallace Estates Ltd (“Wallace”) acquired the freehold in 2014. In January 2024 the First-tier Tribunal made a remediation order under s.123 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) requiring Wallace to remedy relevant defects by 31 May 2025.Durkan — an entity against which Wallace could have sought a remediation contribution order under s.124 — agreed instead to carry out the works at its own cost. The resulting Agreement, dated 1 July 2024, set a completion date of 19 September 2025 “or such other date as is agreed as part of the Plans and Specifications”. That date was already later than the deadline in the remediation order, a point which came to matter.By June 2025 no Gateway 2 application had been made to…

The underlying dispute related to an abandoned hotel development project. The claimant sought in excess of £180 million against the defendant in deceit.